# The condition of Britain today



## Retsu (Mar 4, 2009)

The Times has removed this article from their site for no real reason. It deserves to be read. Thus, I am sharing it.



> *Sleep, profound and inveterate slumber: that is the condition of Britain today.*
> _ Philip Pullman_
> 
> Are such things done on Albion’s shore?
> ...


----------



## Dannichu (Mar 5, 2009)

> It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as [...] the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004)


Um, what? Protecting people from abusive partners is a freedom restriction?

This article is very strange. I agree in part that people don't express opinions much anymore, but I also think that's just as much to do with society as governmental legislation (which, I suppose, have a chicken-and-egg relationship anyway).

It's also pretty typical of The Times; it moans about how much the country sucks (because of young people and/or immigrants optional) and doesn't actually suggest what could be done to make it better. The opening - suggesting that because we don't have labels for everything, we're confused and don't know who or what we are - is particularly annoying.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 5, 2009)

Dannichu said:


> The opening - suggesting that because we don't have labels for everything, we're confused and don't know who or what we are - is particularly annoying.


I'd say it suggests that trying to have, as a nation, a religious identity is futile and that all the labels we *have* made in an attempt to categorize the nation are tripe.


----------



## Dewgong (Mar 5, 2009)

Dannichu said:


> Um, what? Protecting people from abusive partners is a freedom restriction?


Technically, yes it is.


----------



## Dannichu (Mar 5, 2009)

Zhorken said:


> I'd say it suggests that trying to have, as a nation, a religious identity is futile and that all the labels we *have* made in an attempt to categorize the nation are tripe.


It is? I just assumed the "Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?" line suggested that we should feel proud of our country but don't because of the lack of labels. My bad.



Dewgong said:


> Technically, yes it is.


Fine; Protecting people from abusive partners is a bad thing?

Jesus I need to stop posting so late.


----------



## Dewgong (Mar 5, 2009)

No, it's not a bad thing. I'm just saying, it is taking away freedom.


----------



## Zhorken (Mar 5, 2009)

Dannichu said:


> It is? I just assumed the "Are we anything we can all agree on and feel proud of?" line suggested that we should feel proud of our country but don't because of the lack of labels. My bad.


Nah, that bit seems more like it's saying "quit quibbling over how to categorize our differences in religion and start seeing how we agree."


----------



## Amoeba (Mar 5, 2009)

This article addresses a lot of my recent concerns.

I do fear for the future, the way things are going. It wouldn't suprise me if a couple of years down the line Britain turns into a nation of human livestock, effectively slaves.

I believe that the powers that govern these isles have a lot more control over shaping the society into the way it is - and the way it will be - than we give credit for.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Mar 5, 2009)

Hrm, the article's right. Our government is doing a lot of shitty stuff about our rights. The thing is, this is nothing new. There've been attacks on our freedoms and privacy ever since Britain became a parliamentary democracy. Longing for the past will get you nowhere; planning for the future will.


----------

